Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Fan of Science » July 7th, 2017, 11:56 am

Burning Ghost claims I have written lies? Not true. Anyone can go to YouTube, type in Noam Chomsky and evolutionary psychology and find Chomsky writing off this entire branch of science based solely on his political leanings. Chomsky is a leftist, and in leftist politics, one never wants to admit that human behavior is confined to some extent by biology. Both the left and the right write off this basic branch of science. While the left refuses to admit that billions of years of evolution could result in something called human nature, the people on the right believe in genetic determinism, which is equally unscientific and inconsistent with the results of modern biology and evolutionary psychology.

Anyone can also look up Chomsky's anti-Semitic statement about Jews being the most privileged people in the USA. It's an absurd accusation with no evidence to support it. The Amish have special privileges, for example, they do not have to educate their children beyond the eighth grade, so why aren't they the most privileged group in America? American Indians actually have their own set of laws on reservations, so why aren't they the most "privileged" group? I'm not aware of any special laws favoring Jews, while there are special laws favoring many other groups in the USA, but, Chomsky completely ignores reality to promote his anti-Semitism. If the left were honest and not a bunch of Jew-hating bigots, then they would have stopped hero-worshipping Chomsky long ago.

I'll stick with reality and science, while the people on the left and right can live in their ideological-bubble worlds.

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Togo1 » July 7th, 2017, 12:50 pm

Fan of Science wrote:Burning Ghost claims I have written lies?
Ok, so I did a basic search, and found several references to Chomsky's statements about evolutionary psychology. Based on that, you certainly appear to be writing lies. Or rather untruths, since your intentionality one or the other can't easily be established.

I'm also starting to detect a pattern here.

We were originally talking about Islam, and one of the patterns that emerged there was taking a few choice sentances in quotation and trying to use those as 'evidence' of a belief structure markedly at odds with the beliefs of Muslims as they are described and practiced. In other words, critcising Muslims by arguing with them about what they really believe.

Now with Chomsky, again we see this same pattern. Find a quote, use that as 'evidence' that he 'writes off an entire area of science based on his political views', while ignoring everything else he's written about the subject that contradicts your position. In other words, your view of Chomsky isn't really recognisable to anyone familiar with his work, and the opinions he's expressed.

So while you might find this kind of mud-slinging effective with people who don't really know what you're talking about, in a philosophy forum you're going to run into people who have actually read his work. The reason why people reference Chomsky is because he argues his ideas very thoroughly producing ideas that, in general, his opponents can't refute. Instead they're left trying to discredit him, because they know they can't challenge his arguments and ideas.

I understand and appreciate that you really don't like the man, and consider him awful in a wide variety of ways. But this barrage of insults just makes you look desperate, frantic even. You may want to rethink your approach.

Fan of Science
Posts: 172
Joined: May 26th, 2017, 1:39 pm

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Fan of Science » July 7th, 2017, 1:01 pm

********. What I stated was true. Chomsky is an anti-Semite and a science denier. I've seen and listened to a number of viddeos of him writing off evolutionary psychology purely on ideological grounds.

What I see is a pattern among the left --- apologetics for their hero Chomsky, so that when he makes outrageous anti-Semitic claims, people do not condemn him, they do not offer up any evidence to support his claims, they merely condone his anti-Semitism without any rationally coherent basis for doing so. Same thing with his dismissal of science that does not fit within his ideological agenda.

If anyone thinks Chomsky is consistent with being philosophically rational, then they are fools. What is philosophically rational about his silly statement about Jews being the most privileged and influential group in the USA? It's anti-Semitism on steroids.

But, when have leftists ever not been anti-Semitic and honest? Never.

-- Updated July 7th, 2017, 1:16 pm to add the following --

Here's another delusional quote from Noam Chomsky, "Anti-semitism is no longer a problem. It's raised, but it's raised because privileged people want to make sure they have total control, not just 98% control." — Noam Chomsky. So, according to Chomsky, the "privileged people" are wanting total control, not simply "98% control" by mentioning anti-Semitism? By "privileged people," he was referring to Jews, whom he calls the most privileged people in the USA. Can any supporter of Chomsky provide evidence that anti-Semitism no longer exists in the USA, and is being referenced by Jews to increase their control from 98% to 100%? Anyone foolish enough to offer any such evidence to support this anti-Semitism from their hero, Chomsky?

Or, will you do what you have done in the past? Rather than condemn his anti-Semitism and admit that there is no evidence supporting such claims, you will call me a liar instead? I'm "lying" by accurately quoting Chomsky and pointing out the complete lack of evidence to support his delusional claims about Jews?

-- Updated July 7th, 2017, 1:52 pm to add the following --

Here's another anti-Semitic statement by Chomsky, in which he alleges that denying the Holocaust is not being anti-Semitic.

"I see no anti—Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti—Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti—Semitic implications in Faurisson's work..."

It's comical how one can defend Chomsky as some sort of enlightened intellectual when his comments regarding Jews are childish anti-Semitism. The Holocaust is probably the most well-documented crime in history, with authentic historians having documented the use of gas chambers, the intentional murder of Jews by Nazis, and to deny such history is to be anti-Semitic. Can anyone name a denier of the Holocaust who is not a raving anti-Semite? Chomsky's apologetics for neo-Nazis who hate Jews is shameful, but, I'm sure I'll simply be personally attacked yet again by his adoring fans.

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Togo1 » July 7th, 2017, 7:50 pm

Fan of Science wrote:********. What I stated was true. Chomsky is an anti-Semite and a science denier. I've seen and listened to a number of viddeos of him writing off evolutionary psychology purely on ideological grounds.
If you say so. Do those videos accurately represent his entire position?

I ask becasue of the pattern I mentioned in the previous post, which you've not addressed.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Spectrum » July 8th, 2017, 1:04 am

I first heard of Chomsky when I read Lakoff [his student] who challenged him on his realist view of cognitive linguistic.
It began nearly 40 years ago, when, as a graduate student, Lakoff rebelled against his mentor, Noam Chomsky, the most celebrated linguist of the century. The technical basis of their argument, which for a time cleaved the linguistics world in two, remains well beyond the intellectual reach of anyone who actually had fun in college, but it was a personal and nasty disagreement, and it basically went like this: Chomsky said that linguists should concern themselves with discovering the universal rules of syntax, which form the basis for language.
Lakoff, on the other hand, theorized that language was inherently linked to the workings of the mind -- to ''conceptual structures,'' as a linguist would put it -- and that to understand language, you first had to study the way that each individual's worldview and ideas informed his thought process.
http://more-minerals.blogspot.my/2015/0 ... omsky.html
Chomsky had the upper hand then as the majority agreed with him.

I believe in the present Lakoff's Embodied Cognition is the prevalent ideas which is very popular with artificial intelligence.
Embodied cognition has a relatively short history. Its intellectual roots date back to early 20th century philosophers Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and John Dewey and it has only been studied empirically in the last few decades. One of the key figures to empirically study embodiment is University of California at Berkeley professor George Lakoff.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gu ... our-brain/
I believe Chomsky's rigid mind [realist] is still holding him back at present.

Note his seemingly latest and very pessimistic view of Evolutionary Psychology;
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost » July 8th, 2017, 4:06 am

I don't find that "pessimistic" just conservative. Science, referring to experimental science, requires hard data. He is well within his rights to say we should err on the side of caution in these areas because they are "complex". We are not talking about measuring behavior in any solid sense here.

He says here it is a very interesting subject too and worth looking at. Like every scientist though, he seems to be saying we are not in a position to conclude anything much definitively.

Given the acceleration and complexity of neuroscience we are still playing catch up. Some discoveries in neuroscience back up Chomsky's views and others don't. The vast amount of data we have is still very much open to interpretation when it comes to psychology. This is the main reason I looked to Husserl in regards to what he called the mistake of "psychic atomism". This is modern mindset stemming from Descartes problem of dualism.

There is still no consensus on the whole argument surrounding "quale" and "quanta". Ironically this may be a lot more to do with our application of language to ideas and physicalism ... it is a very intriguing area.

Note: I have also seen him questioned about his so called "anti-Semitic" views. His response and explanation is usually quite simple and it often a case of people on both sides of the fence using his words to attack or defend their position. He talks very openly about some very touchy subjects and is very clear in what he says, or vague if need be. His comments, as far as I know, regarding the "holocaust" or "privilege" of American Jews is taken out of context. By all means (to fan of science) post the videos with him speaking and saying these things, not just something in parenthesis you've found on an anti-Chomsky site or youtube video.

I have seen people like Peter Hitchens be taken apart in the same manner because they simply speak their minds and voice their opinions (with facts) about this or that.

Spectrum -

I am sorry if this discussion has veered off. It is my personal duty to question things I deem as badly presented. Well done for posting something that doesn't present some bizarre bias trying to frame Chomsky as someone against scientific investigation. After all he is an acclaimed scientist of language, and because of this we can be reasonably sure he understands that things can be taken out of context an often are. This doesn't mean we should not speak at all though.

No doubt we all experience misinterpretation and representation. We have to accept it and guard against it as best we can.

I don't know if you wish this thread to move into other areas now or not? Where should we go? I am guessing you want to stop short of metaphysics?

What can we take away from this thread? Are we saying that The Left are looking out for those under fire and The Right are looking out for themselves and encouraging others to do the same? Is it fair to say that both are okay to a degree?

I can certainly understand that we have been conditioned, especially over the 90's, to be more tolerant. I think the major problem is confusing tolerance with sympathy. I can, and do, have sympathy for suicide bombers. I imagine their lives are very insulated and fraught existences, BUT I will not tolerate murder of innocents due to their particular misfortunes that lead them to such a terrible end.

When it comes to general political views I am very much to the so called "left" and would best describe myself as "some kind of anarchist", meaning I oppose authority, be it my own or others (which is a very skeptical approach which I am constantly battling with for a "better" and more diverse perspective). Am I sympathetic toward Islam? Not really. I am sympathetic to people who are Muslim being looked at as if they are subhuman. Do people have reason to fear Islam in general? Yes, they do. Should they fear Islam? I don't see why they should any more than Christianity (although the current climate is very much one of fear toward Islam due to militant actions).

This is one VERY controversial area where I can question something Chomsky says about "terrorists" and other actions made by governments. This will no doubt spark a huge backlash and I am not going to defend Chomsky's point only bring it into consideration. I think we are too quick to judge someone rather than to listen.

Anyway, he said something along the lines of (to paraphrase) "terrorists kill people for a reason", whereas he refers to governments treating the deaths of civilians as being like "bugs splattering on their windshield".

I do find this to be a very callous remark, but understand the point of pointing something so bluntly. What he is asking us to look at hear is the very disturbing idea of governments looking at the death of innocents as "collateral damage" rather than the loss of human lives.

I can view Chomsky saying this as being two things at once. One is callous and apathetic to the circumstances which lead to violent acts and disregards those who die to terrorist attacks, and the second which makes me force myself to look at the governments which openly refer to death of innocents as "unfortunate" and "collateral damage". Keep in mind here we are talking about the death of innocent people. In both circumstances the attackers distance themselves from the event. The terrorist kills people and knows this (although they are blinkered by religious ideologies which present these "people" as being "godless" or "corrupt"). The governments refuse to call them "people", they are just like bugs of the windshield wiped away and forgotten once the "operation" is finished. They are an "unfortunate" circumstance of war and we pretend to ourselves (to some degree) that it is actually "necessary".

In this respect I find it quite hard to get t the root of Chomsky's point and its severity is understandably regarded by many as viciously sympathetic. He is most certainly telling us to look in the mirror. His general view, as I understand it, is to consider your own degree of blame in any situation.

It is in these areas we tend to guard our own psychological well being by turning to reason and logical thought. We tell ourselves to look at thinks without emotion conflict and act as if we're robots. Logical thought without humanism seems like a lost cause to me I don't know about you?

It is terribly hard to reflect on the points people make when you have a preconceived idea of what they stand for.

I can tolerate any religion. I will not tolerate certain actions or behaviours regardless of ideology (be it political, religious or whatever else there may be). If, as you say, some religions want to create more and more actions and behaviours I don't tolerate then I will oppose them. If for example someone hates black people that is okay, I can tolerate that. I can sit down and question this person on their views and try to understand them. If they go out and try to kill black people I will try and stop them.
AKA badgerjelly

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Togo1 » July 8th, 2017, 9:44 am

Spectrum wrote:I believe Chomsky's rigid mind [realist] is still holding him back at present.

Note his seemingly latest and very pessimistic view of Evolutionary Psychology;
I think he has a point. You'll note that he's talking about the reporting and discussions that've gone around evolutionary psychology, rather than the subject itself, which as he says does have some interesting work. But, yes, evolutionary psychology is not going to produce solid conclusions about the nature of humanity any time soon, and nor should it be expected to. Pychology in general has an issue whereby it runs the gamut between areas that are very interesting and directly ask questions that concern us (evolutionary psychology, social psychology, developmental psychology, psycho-therapy), but for which the results are always going to be 'soft' and potentially challengeable, and areas where the rigour and careful isolation of factors mean the results are extremely robust, but which tend to target questions that don't generally speak to our everyday lives (behaviourism, animal behaviour, neuorphysiology).

In this particular area, while i have a lot of time for Chomsky's views, I don't see him as being particularly expert. As someone with an advanced degree in psychology, I get the impression I know the subject better than he does. But his views are well-presented, and hardly particularly controvertial - similar criticisms and comments are made by less well-known people.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Spectrum » July 8th, 2017, 11:59 pm

Burning ghost wrote:Spectrum -
I am sorry if this discussion has veered off. It is my personal duty to question things I deem as badly presented. Well done for posting something that doesn't present some bizarre bias trying to frame Chomsky as someone against scientific investigation. After all he is an acclaimed scientist of language, and because of this we can be reasonably sure he understands that things can be taken out of context an often are. This doesn't mean we should not speak at all though.
I don't know if you wish this thread to move into other areas now or not? Where should we go? I am guessing you want to stop short of metaphysics?
With Chomsky we are still on track because he is one of the icon of the left and in this case the Regressive Left. Btw, my reference is specifically on the Regressive Left, not all those on the Left. Personally I am not too bothered about 'Right or Left.' I am more concern about what is 'good' and 'evil' within either 'Right or Left.

As far as cognitive linguistic is concern, Chomsky is of the old school. Note I mentioned George Lakoff, his student, who challenged Chomsky's rigidity. Lakoff introduced Embodied Cognition [related to the phenomenologists] into cognitive linguistics.
Anyway, he said something along the lines of (to paraphrase) "terrorists kill people for a reason", whereas he refers to governments treating the deaths of civilians as being like "bugs splattering on their windshield".
I do find this to be a very callous remark, but understand the point of pointing something so bluntly. What he is asking us to look at hear is the very disturbing idea of governments looking at the death of innocents as "collateral damage" rather than the loss of human lives.
For a start, Chomsky is ignorant of what Islam really is. I don't think he had mastered the Quran and Islam's other holy texts to understand the true ethos of Islam. So the most he can refer to are the 'foreign political policies' of USA & allies toward muslim-majority nations and groups of Muslims. Chomsky and his likes do not has the capacity to dig deeper to understand the proximate root causes of the range of evils potential within Islam [partly].

Note the evil Muslims were triggered by the evil ethos of Islam and went on a rampage of evil long before the USA was even born. They started their evil violence 1,400 years ago when Islam emerged and continued to the present.

What is essential within Islam [partly] is a very malignant ethos of evil. I have studied the Quran [not Ahadith] full time for long enough to understand the evil ethos within Islam [partly].

Even the terrorists themselves declared the foreign policies of USA and allies are not the most critical reason why they want to attack the West and non-Muslims.
The most critical reason is;
it is an imperative belief and duty within the ethos of Islam, Muslims MUST hate the West and, fight and kill non-Muslims because they are disbelievers!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ns-8533563
The Mirror extracted these 6 reasons from their Newsletter.
I understood this point very well because I know Islam sufficiently.

I understand there are many secondary reasons, political foreign policies, poverty, bias, social, etc. that trigger SOME Muslims to commit evil and violence. But the inherent and primary reason is the malignant evil elements within the ideology of Islam itself.

-- Updated Sat Jul 08, 2017 11:59 pm to add the following --
I can tolerate any religion. I will not tolerate certain actions or behaviours regardless of ideology (be it political, religious or whatever else there may be). If, as you say, some religions want to create more and more actions and behaviours I don't tolerate then I will oppose them. If for example someone hates black people that is okay, I can tolerate that. I can sit down and question this person on their views and try to understand them. If they go out and try to kill black people I will try and stop them.
I believe the right moral approach is as follows;
We tolerate what is potentially good and do not tolerate what is potentially evil.
Evil = in general, any human act that is negative and effectively net-negative to the well being of the individual.

I read somewhere [Aristotle if not mistaken] that 'hatred' is specifically for human traits that cannot be changed, e.g. race, disabilities, disease, physical state, genes, and the likes. Therefore the term 'hate' is more appropriate reserved for permanent [cannot be changed] features and such hatred should be considered evil because it has potential for harm up to the extreme of genocide. Thus racial hatred should never be tolerated because it is potentially evil and harmful.

Ideologies are merely ideas and the person's views can be changed, as such the more appropriate terms could be 'dislike' critical, anti,- etc.
As for ideologies, those that has evil elements and has potential for great evil and violence should not be tolerated.
Therefore the malignant evil elements within Islam should not be tolerated and something must be done to suppress those evil elements.

Those Muslims who commit evil and violence are unfortunate to be born with evil tendencies and they are influenced by the evil elements within Islam. In this case we have to understand and tolerate them but we have to do something to prevent them from being expose to the evil elements inherent within Islam. If they have already committed evil and violence the Law has to take its cause, but the primary focus should be on the root cause, i.e. the ideology, not the person.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost » July 9th, 2017, 1:16 am

Yes, the hatred of non-believers is more prominent in Islam than Christianity from my understanding. Islam will either reform or cease to exist. People on the far right will counter those on the far left. I don't really think we should be overly worried, just cautious about how we view the situation.

I have watched and listened to some people who are generally cast in the media as far right and anti-muslim. I can see quite clearly that some of them truly believe what they say and that they have some very valid points that people label as "bigotry". These people are genuinely concerned and it would do the world of good if they were allowed to speak out and freedom of speech was enforced for ALL (even the ones I consider the most repulsive).

One thing terrorism does well is stops people sitting down and talking. If that happened we'd all understand the issue better rather than get caught up in some sensationalist nonsense.

I wouldn't use UK newspapers as references. The press in the UK are on another level of insanity even in comparison to US news channels! Murdoch ... (urrghh!)

That said they are worth reading and looking at just to keep an eye on what political agenda they are pushing. "News" has become little more than sensationalism. There are some journalists out there though trying to report.

Regarding Chomsky, I just think people should take his words in the context he puts them. If some want to use him as a Leftist Icon, so be it. I don't view him as being "left" or "right" because those terms don't really make much sense to me. I do think he is worth listening to though simply because he is one of the few who buck the trend and openly oppose those usually deemed "the good guys".
AKA badgerjelly

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Spectrum » July 9th, 2017, 1:22 am

Togo1 wrote:... As someone with an advanced degree in psychology, I get the impression I know the subject better than he does. But his views are well-presented, and hardly particularly controversial - similar criticisms and comments are made by less well-known people.
Note my points above re Chomsky and his ignorance of Islam, the Quran and its ethos.
Since Islamic based evils and violence is such a great threat to humanity, I believe we should not accept Chomsky's view as authoritative [many do] since he is not an expert on Islamic doctrines.

Since you are an expert on psychology;
I presume you would agree evil elements in the movies, computer games and various medias, social environment, and the likes will greatly influence those with vulnerable inborn proclivities to evil and violence to commit the related heinous acts. Yes, No?
example: http://www.apa.org/action/resources/res ... otect.aspx

The Quran and other Holy texts of Islam do contain loads of evil elements where it can be argued is worst than Main Kempf in some aspects.
  • The Koran changed its attitude, and Jews became the object of hatred. Indeed, as a measurement of that hatred, 10.6% of the Koran written in Medina is about Jew hatred. Using the concept of the German Holocaust as the reference, it should be noted that 6.8% of Mein Kampf is about Jew hatred. Conclusion: the Koran written in Medina is more filled with Jew hatred than Mein Kampf.
    https://www.politicalislam.com/the-good ... st-denial/

Violence in Bible? yes, but there are restraints in the NT in term of an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, love your neighbors, etc.
The problem with the Quran is, its commands are vague, ambiguous, dualistic and open ended.

If the Quran has loads of evil elements and is worst than the Main Kempf, Why is the Left [Regressive] so sympathetic to Islam?
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost » July 9th, 2017, 4:06 am

Spectrum -
If the Quran has loads of evil elements and is worst than the Main Kempf, Why is the Left [Regressive] so sympathetic to Islam?
I hate to repeat what others have said again, BUT ... this is your opinion about the "Regressive Left" (whoever they are?)
The Quran and other Holy texts of Islam do contain loads of evil elements where it can be argued is worst than Main Kempf in some aspects.

The Koran changed its attitude, and Jews became the object of hatred. Indeed, as a measurement of that hatred, 10.6% of the Koran written in Medina is about Jew hatred. Using the concept of the German Holocaust as the reference, it should be noted that 6.8% of Mein Kampf is about Jew hatred. Conclusion: the Koran written in Medina is more filled with Jew hatred than Mein Kampf.
https://www.politicalislam.com/the-good ... st-denial/

Violence in Bible? yes, but there are restraints in the NT in term of an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, love your neighbors, etc.
The problem with the Quran is, its commands are vague, ambiguous, dualistic and open ended.
I think you've shown the reason right here. People oppose the hatred, but defend the good stuff. The Koran "changed its attitude"? People changed their attitude about The Koran. We can view Christianity as having a similar issue over the ages. Many used to, and some still do, take every word literally and look for excuses to commit evil acts. I can obviously see on the surface the ease with which The Koran is more open to this given how its interpretations have been used for political ends over the centuries. The exact same can be said of The Bible too (there is no escaping this fact). Of course regardless of the historical differences we are left in the situation we currently suffer from. Islam is at odds with itself and with the modern world in many ways. Or rather it is not Islam itself but more a case of theocracy being the problem.

Without a doubt it does seem like the internal conflict within the Islamic world (culturally and religiously) has produced pronounced problems.

Funnily enough China is one of the only countries that very much opposes theocracy in any form, and government officials are not allowed to practice religion. This would be a damn good thing for everyone everywhere IMO. How do we overthrow theocracy? In the case of Islamic States this is not easy. The ideal situation would be to simply let them evolve naturally and then repair the damage. In the meantime we keep them out of our governments completely and strive to rid any sign of religious doctrines from state laws.

I don't see any mass hysterical sympathy toward Islam. I see people guarding against bigotry and the painting of all with a broad brush being interpreted by others as "sympathetic" toward murderers.

Theocracy is the evil not the particular doctrine of the religion. It has taken hundreds of years for western civilization to progress from theocratic rulers to what we have today. I agree with your "quote" at the bottom in regard to government. Religion was useful and necessary and now we have found something better that gives greater equality and opportunities for all sorts of people.
AKA badgerjelly

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Spectrum » July 9th, 2017, 6:50 am

Burning ghost wrote:I think you've shown the reason right here. People oppose the hatred, but defend the good stuff. The Koran "changed its attitude"? People changed their attitude about The Koran. We can view Christianity as having a similar issue over the ages. Many used to, and some still do, take every word literally and look for excuses to commit evil acts. I can obviously see on the surface the ease with which The Koran is more open to this given how its interpretations have been used for political ends over the centuries. The exact same can be said of The Bible too (there is no escaping this fact). Of course regardless of the historical differences we are left in the situation we currently suffer from. Islam is at odds with itself and with the modern world in many ways. Or rather it is not Islam itself but more a case of theocracy being the problem.
The Koran "changed its attitude"?
Here is where your unfamiliarity with Islam and its emergence that are the limitations to your understanding of the critical issue.

Here is the point;
There are two phases to Muhammad founding of Islam and this is reflected in the various chapters of the Quran.
For 12[+/-] Muhammad preached his revelations and insulted the people in Mecca in typical proselytization manner and he had only 100+ followers.
Then he was chased out of Mecca and he fled to Medina. This is where the Quran "changed its attitude" to warring mode and his followers were rewarded with loots, properties, land and women. For the next 10+/- years Muhammad went on a rampage with wars, terror and violence. Within 10 years he gathered 100,000 followers and many Jews were slaughtered around Medina.
This is the CRITICAL point [note this] where Islam turned into warring and terror mode which continued up to the present by SOME evil prone Muslims who tried to emulate Muhammad as enacted in the doctrine of Islam in the Quran.

Christianity similar issues?
Christians as commanded in the NT has an overriding maxim to 'love your enemies' love your neighbors, love this, love that, etc. Christians are fearful of God and thus would not dare to go against God's command to kill and even their enemies.
Imagine if a Christian were to kill his enemies s/he will definitely be 'f...ked' by God on Judgment Day. If any Christians were to kill any one, they probably has no alternatives but to take the risk, repent, face God's wrath and hope for forgiveness.

Muslims?
Muslims in the Quran are exhorted to fight & kill non-Muslims under certain conditions which are vague, dualistic, ambiguous, open-ended and are given extra rewards if they are martyred. No Muslims would dare to go against Allah's command, thus the fact that they are willing to fight and kill non-Muslims imply that they believe such is their duty to be a good Muslim to please Allah.
Imagine, when a martyred Muslim meet Allah of Judgment Day, Allah would have said,
  • "Give me Five!! you will be well rewarded as promised for following my commands as stated in the Quran."
If you want to challenge me on this, I suggest you read the Quran [at least 20 times] and as many English translations as possible [I refer to more than 50+].
Without a doubt it does seem like the internal conflict within the Islamic world (culturally and religiously) has produced pronounced problems.
The Quran do exhort Muslims to fight and kill upon certain vague conditions, but it commanded Muslims not to be divided into sects.
But after the death of Muhammad, the Muslims divided into Sunni and Shia Muslims.
Those who followed the Quran-only are the Pure Muslims and those divided [Shia and Sunni] are in fact are following "impure" [corrupted] Islam.
Funnily enough China is one of the only countries that very much opposes theocracy in any form, and government officials are not allowed to practice religion. This would be a damn good thing for everyone everywhere IMO. How do we overthrow theocracy? In the case of Islamic States this is not easy. The ideal situation would be to simply let them evolve naturally and then repair the damage. In the meantime we keep them out of our governments completely and strive to rid any sign of religious doctrines from state laws.
This is my point I am striving toward. The only effective problem solving technique is to get to the proximate root causes and take action from that level.
Then we need to expose these root causes [objectively and convincingly] and explain to all concern.
Once we are convinced we have to generate solutions to deal with it. I foresee it will take probably two generations to resolve but we have to start now!
I don't see any mass hysterical sympathy toward Islam. I see people guarding against bigotry and the painting of all with a broad brush being interpreted by others as "sympathetic" toward murderers.
  • 1. Because of the massive amount of evils and violence from the evil Muslims,
    2. the extreme right are provoked to react with their own threats.
    3. The problem is some on the extreme right do not differentiate between Islam [ideology] and Muslims [believers]. So they attack any Muslims and mosques.
    4. Those regressive Left also do not differentiate between Islam [ideology] and Muslims [believers]. So when innocent Muslims are attacked, they associate it with an attack on Islam.
    5. This is the reason why the 'regressive left' are sympathetic to Islam.
    6. When they are sympathetic and defend Islam from intellectual criticisms, they are actually stopping humanity from getting to the proximate root cause and thus allowing the malignant evil within Islam to fester.
I am surprised you are that blind. These days there are protesters everywhere whenever a discussion of Islam by its critiques are held. People like me who critique Islam are condemned. Many critiques are killed. Many governments [Canada, UK, France, etc.] are very pro-Muslims out of fear and terror.
Theocracy is the evil not the particular doctrine of the religion. It has taken hundreds of years for western civilization to progress from theocratic rulers to what we have today. I agree with your "quote" at the bottom in regard to government. Religion was useful and necessary and now we have found something better that gives greater equality and opportunities for all sorts of people.
As far as Islam is concerned it is the doctrine of the religion that is partially evil and malignant. These evil laden elements trigger and compel the evil prone believers [say 20%, potentially 300 million Muslims] to fight and kill non-Muslims in the belief it is their divine duty to do so to please Allah. This is like gang members who are willing to kill to show their loyalty to the gang.
To show loyalty and to be ensured of a path to Paradise [and virgins] SOME [large quantum] Muslims are willing to kill non-Muslims as their divine duty to please Allah.
This is proven by glaring evidences of the ongoing tsunami of evils and violence.

Theocracy has its typical problems but most do not have exceptional problems of evils and violence like those doctrinal driven evils of Islam by evil prone Muslims. Theocracy is enshrined within the doctrine of Islam and there are no alternatives to it for the believer.

Note the Tibetan has Theocracy until recently when the Dalai Lama escaped to India. We do not hear of terrible evils from Tibetan Theocracy that are inspired by the teachings of the Buddha.
Christian theocracy had its own problem long ago, but it is definitely not inspired by Jesus' teaching of love. Those evil Christians were like current Christian pedophile preachers who went against Jesus' teaching and they will definitely be punished by God on judgment day.

Islam is the only religion with elements of evil [open ended] within its doctrine that inspire and drive SOME of its believer to commit evil and violence as a duty to Allah.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Burning ghost
Posts: 2212
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Burning ghost » July 9th, 2017, 10:29 am

Now I am blind?

I don't care if it is Buddhism or not. I don't want religious states at all. I don't care what religion we are talking about I don't want ANY having a hold of any nation.

Christianity gives its extreme believers the excuse to do anything because if they confess their sins they are forgiven. Islam is Old Testament with open warfare and murder. Christians slaughtered countless "pagans". What caused this to happen? Some Roman dude got all high and mighty and decided to completely change the face of Christianity and make it into a war hungry conquering device. Prior to that various religions lived side by side without any serious problems.

What really puzzles me about you is you seem to be apologetic toward Christianity? I say this if you assume I am being apologetic toward Islam? I respect religion and I see religion as being a source of human culture, but a number of horrors come with this. I don't think either of us are being apologetic to either, but I do think you assume I am being apologetic for some reason.

What concerns me is bombing and killing innocent people in foreign countries to get to the SOME. I am sure the matter is more complex than this because oil is involved as well as arms deals and such.

People in the US government have come out and made statements that pretty much said they went into the middle east because they couldn't think of anything else better to do. It is fairly clear to me that the power of the US is recognized globally. Open interference by US companies and government backed bodies have led to a backlash. Somewhere down the line someone used the vehicle of Islam to drive their cause.

I simply will not accept that Islam is the ONLY religion with elements of evil within its doctrine. That is clearly a false statement. In The Bible let us not try to dress up the fact that God kills and murders repeatedly, men, women, children AND the animals who happen to be there. This was GOD acting not some mere mortal prophet.

The situation of both religions today is much different I grant you that. All religions fall back on the premise of diminished responsibility if the believer chooses. It is always "God's great plan", "God's will" or other form of nonsense.

Whatever happens the extremists will lose eventually. Science will not disappear and the truth of life will always out.

People on the so called "far right/left" are stopped from arranged speeches quite often. I want them ALL to speak freely.

I have seen Muslim people protesting about Israel and also opposing each other because some wanted death for Jews and other just wanted liberation of Palestine and were not calling for the killing of Jews.

I find it very interesting to listen to people like Tommy Robinson and George Galloway.

One thing is for sure ... if I was to stand in say London and announce to everyone that I was going to burn several religious texts, including Christian and Islamic texts, because it was my right to do so I imagine both Christians and Muslims would be annoyed and protest against what I was doing. To be fair I have more respect for books than that though!

It seems reasonable to me to say if someone started to threaten my life or protest against me burning a book I had bought then they should be but under psychriatric evaluation for their own good. This to me is a clear sign of delusion. That would be a nice law to see implemented.

My main concern regarding recent events is freedom of speech and human rights. These for me need to be constantly defended and reinforced. I do not really side with ideas that push for reduction in basic human rights to combat a few nutters. It starts with small things and then it gains momentum. We live in a culture where they have to put fire hazard warnings on lighters ... this is no simply amusing it is plain scary. I guess this stems from the far left mentality trying to protect idiots who don't understand that lighters burn. I am all for letting the bloody idiots burn tbh. There was a spate of utter stupidity in the 90's about these kinds of issues and I guess some are hung up on this cultural lapse. All in all I tend to blame lawyer culture and the plight of suing that raged for a period with people putting in claims for "tripping on the pavement", or some other utterly stupid case. In my eyes those people should be instantly locked up for being whining idiots who thought they could get a hand out.

I think these kinds of issue are more worrisome than Islam. They are also a day-to-day evil in many peoples lives. The difference is these evils are not dressed up in religious garb, they are dressed up as "law".

As an example I remember seeing a woman desperate for work because she was ashamed to live on benefits. She took any job she could get, but actually would have been better off claiming benefits. She was then evicted from her house because she couldn't keep up her payments because she refused NOT to not work? No one could help her because the law was not on her side. The "letter of the law" is more worrisome than the pretend words of some imaginary omnipotent being.

note: No one will be punished on god judgement day for quite obvious reasons (unless you are talking about the concept of "god" as a human psychological state rather than some fantasy end of times exam results where some super being lords over us and decides or not whether to torture us for eternity or make beautiful love to us whilst we eat delicious viands from the heavens?)

-- Updated July 9th, 2017, 1:33 pm to add the following --

I just had a revelation. Woke from a dream a few minutes ago and have been exploring its surface, and a little depth.

There are some things I said above that I can honestly mark as being sincere. I cannot explain to you why I believe what I believe but I know it is a belief. I am not anti-theist, but I do see theistic attachment to the premise of deities as being a misinterpretation, so "illusion" is a better word where I wrote "delusion".

People shouldn't be locked up for saying things that seem irrational and mad. If I believed that then I would have to insist you lock me up too. Although I don't openly express certain things (because I lack the ability or maybe it just cannot be done?) if I did/could then I would likely be deemed delusional and irrational by many people.

Understand the relativism of the human psyche, or rather become more acquainted with it where we can for a way onwards.
AKA badgerjelly

Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Togo1 » July 9th, 2017, 8:22 pm

Spectrum wrote:
Togo1 wrote:... As someone with an advanced degree in psychology, I get the impression I know the subject better than he does. But his views are well-presented, and hardly particularly controversial - similar criticisms and comments are made by less well-known people.
Note my points above re Chomsky and his ignorance of Islam, the Quran and its ethos.
Since Islamic based evils and violence is such a great threat to humanity, I believe we should not accept Chomsky's view as authoritative [many do] since he is not an expert on Islamic doctrines.
I don't tend to view any source as authorative. I'm fond of Chomsky because he explains, in great detail, exactly how he reached the conclusions he has. This means if he goes off course, you can see where and why.
Spectrum wrote:Since you are an expert on psychology;
I presume you would agree evil elements in the movies, computer games and various medias, social environment, and the likes will greatly influence those with vulnerable inborn proclivities to evil and violence to commit the related heinous acts. Yes, No?
example: http://www.apa.org/action/resources/res ... otect.aspx
Generally no, the effects measured tend to be slight, short-term, and don't closely match the source. As such I regard violent computer games as less harmful than, say, inaccurate newspapers, or poorly argued internet articles. I may be wrong, of course. However, there's been so little success in trying to connect exposure to source A, to personality change B, except through manipulation of facts and arguement. Children will tend to pick up stereotypes from such sources, but these don't survive contact with higher quality information.
Spectrum wrote:The Quran and other Holy texts of Islam do contain loads of evil elements where it can be argued is worst than Main Kempf in some aspects.
Probably. Is Mein Kempf a particularly evil book? It was used as a symbol, and it was written by someone who became politically influential themselves, but there's not much to suggest the book itself was influential. It's never been regarded as well written. I'll admit to not having read it though.
Spectrum wrote:Violence in Bible? yes, but there are restraints in the NT in term of an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, love your neighbors, etc.

<shrug> As there are in the Quran.
Spectrum wrote:The problem with the Quran is, its commands are vague, ambiguous, dualistic and open ended.
Which is probably why it's not taken as a literalist source in Islam. In Western Christian Fundamentalism, you take the bible as your only source, slap your own interpretation on it, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. In radical Islam, you don't do the same with Quran. You run with an interpretation based on a scholastic tradition, and any textual interpretation is done in the context of that tradition. If your view of Islam is based solely on studying the Quran over and over, then you don't understand Islam.
Spectrum wrote:If the Quran has loads of evil elements and is worst than the Main Kempf, Why is the Left [Regressive] so sympathetic to Islam?
A good internet rule of them thumb is "Before asking Why, ask If" Thus far you've not actually demonstrated that there exists a Regressive Left, or that they are particularly sympathetic to Islam, rather than just civil liberties in general.

Another useful trick is to reverse the question, and see if it still works. Why are you spending so much time and energy attacking Islam, a religion which doesn't appear to have any elements or features that aren't found in other religions?

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Why is the left so sympathetic to Islam?

Post by Spectrum » July 9th, 2017, 11:00 pm

@Burning Ghost
Noted your points, for most of them I have gone through in details.
[b]Burning Ghost[/b] wrote:What really puzzles me about you is you seem to be apologetic toward Christianity?
It is only relative. All religions has their share of evils based on their holy texts but Islam is the worst in the following rating of potential for real evils and violence based on evidences;
  • 1. Islam = 90% [1.5 billion followers]
    2. Christianity =30% [2 billion]
    3. Judaism = 40% [6-10 million]
    4. Buddhism = 0.01%
    5. Taoism = 0.02
    6. Jainism = 0.001%
Effectively and pragmatically, why I am focusing on Islam is because it is significantly critical within the resources constraints I have.
I have a problem with Christianity because many of my kins had been seduced [threat of eternal death] and our kinship bonding has been terrible eroded. But this evil cannot match the evils Islam [partly] is generating around the World. [note my Boddhisattva Vow].

I have been listening to Tommy Robinson as well and his experience is basically what I am trying to convey. Islam is inherently evil within its core.
Tommy Robinson experienced first hand in his home town, Luton. Robinson sensed the pulse of evil of Islam [appx. 20 years ago] and experienced how Islamic evil was festering on a daily basis around his neighborhood & Luton town and he sounded the alarm but no one listened to him because the majority were ignorant of the true nature of Islam [the evil part].

After 20 years what Robinson was warning about Islam now turned out to be true. Luton town is now infested with vermins [SOME], has a record of continual Islamic evils & violence and had bred many jihadists that caused terrible violence to other part of UK [Rotherham, London. Manchester, etc.] and the world.

Even after the real evidence of Islamic evils and violence, the majority are still convinced to Robinson's message. They instead accused him of being a bigot, racist [Islam is not a race], Islamophobia [no! there is real fears], all sorts of names.

Why Robinson and others like him cannot get through to the majority is because they did not get to the proximate causes like I do.
Robinson and most critiques of Islam [evil part] merely quote the verses that has warring and violent elements in the Quran and Ahadith which are not sufficient to convince the majority Islam is malignantly evil.

-- Updated Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:26 am to add the following --

@Togo1
Spectrum wrote:Since you are an expert on psychology;
I presume you would agree evil elements in the movies, computer games and various medias, social environment, and the likes will greatly influence those with vulnerable inborn proclivities to evil and violence to commit the related heinous acts. Yes, No?
example: http://www.apa.org/action/resources/res ... otect.aspx
Generally no, the effects measured tend to be slight, short-term, and don't closely match the source. As such I regard violent computer games as less harmful than, say, inaccurate newspapers, or poorly argued internet articles. I may be wrong, of course. However, there's been so little success in trying to connect exposure to source A, to personality change B, except through manipulation of facts and arguement. Children will tend to pick up stereotypes from such sources, but these don't survive contact with higher quality information.
Are you implying we should not ban nor censor movies, computer games and various medias, social environment, and the likes that has evil and violent materials?

Note:
Harper-Mercer was known as a recluse who was obsessed with violent gaming and the digital world, even finding supporters on those sites. On an anonymous chat room website called 4chan, there are messages that talk about what he was planning to do.
http://www.charismanews.com/culture/526 ... ideo-games
For such cases there are two critical causes, i.e. the predisposition to violence and the triggers as from medias, computer games, etc.

I don't think "inaccurate newspapers, or poorly argued internet articles" are the main points in this case. What is critical is whether the contents contain evil and violent elements regardless of whether it is accurate or inaccurate.
These evil and violent elements will catalyze and triggers any one who is born with an inherent disposition for evils and violence.
For example it was reported by the media [all over the World] that in Myanmar Muslims [man, woman and children] were victimized and killed. What followed was bombing of the brith place of Gautama Buddha, Buddhist temples in Indonesia and violence against Buddhists elsewhere.

It is not only violent elements that trigger violence in some Muslims. Even the drawings of cartoons of Muhammad would trigger Muslims to fight and kill.
Spectrum wrote:The Quran and other Holy texts of Islam do contain loads of evil elements where it can be argued is worst than Main Kempf in some aspects.
Probably. Is Mein Kempf a particularly evil book? It was used as a symbol, and it was written by someone who became politically influential themselves, but there's not much to suggest the book itself was influential. It's never been regarded as well written. I'll admit to not having read it though.
The Mein Kempf contained evil elements of hatred for Jews. I don't think Germans would have immediately killed Jews after finishing reading the Mein Kempf then but it is a part of the hate ideology that was subliminally infecting the consciousness of Germans [Nazis] then.

Btw, are you familiar with the principles, concepts, mechanisms, and processes that trigger genocides.
The 8 Stages of Genocide
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8 ... ocide.html
Islam [partly] has elements in all the above 8 stages of genocides as proven in the Genocides of the Armenians, Yazidis, Jews, etc.
Spectrum wrote:Violence in Bible? yes, but there are restraints in the NT in term of an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, love your neighbors, etc.

<shrug> As there are in the Quran.
I have done very detailed analysis of the 6,236 verses in the Quran.
There are good verses in the Quran but these are directed at Muslims [only] to be good.
There are like ONLY 10+ verses that are directed positively at non-Muslims, 10+!! out of 6,236 verses in the Quran. In context these 10+ good verses are overwhelmed by the tons of other evil laden verses of the same context that are anti-non-Muslims. Allah may have stated a Muslim be kind to his/her non-Muslims parents in one verse but be harsh to non-Muslims even if they are your parents in other verses.
There are 3,400++ verses 55%!! of the 6,236 verses that are negative [of various degrees] to non-Muslims.
There are no overriding maxims to love one enemies in the Quran.
Christianity has an unconditional maxim 'Thou Shalt Not Kill" in the ten commandments.
Islam do have such commands but they are always conditional, i.e. "Do Not Kill except ... " as they are followed with conditions which are vague, ambiguous and open ended.
Spectrum wrote:The problem with the Quran is, its commands are vague, ambiguous, dualistic and open ended.
Which is probably why it's not taken as a literalist source in Islam. In Western Christian Fundamentalism, you take the bible as your only source, slap your own interpretation on it, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. In radical Islam, you don't do the same with Quran. You run with an interpretation based on a scholastic tradition, and any textual interpretation is done in the context of that tradition. If your view of Islam is based solely on studying the Quran over and over, then you don't understand Islam.
Technically [by Allah's decree] in according to Allah's words, a Muslim is one who has entered [explicitly or implicitly] into a spiritual contract [covenant] with Allah and agreeing to terms of the contract which can only be from the Quran [6,236 verses] and no where else.

If one sign a contract the obligation of each party is confined within the terms of the contract and cannot be anywhere else, e.g. appendix, explanatory notes, commentaries, etc.

On Judgment Day, Allah will only decide and rely on what is in the Quran as per contracted. Allah specifically stated in the Quran, Allah will not accept any terms that is outside the Quran [6,236 verses] which is supposedly fully detailed, Perfected, Complete and Final.

The principles of contract is applied everywhere especially with God.

The majority of Muslims, Sunni majority and Shia who adopted the Ahadith as having divine authority [when technically there is none] are deviant-Muslims regardless of their claims. They are relying on a very thin string [argument] to hold on to their claims that the Ahadith [100%] has divine authority. If you are familiar with the Ahadith you will note many of the hadith are an insult to their Allah, e.g. drinking camel urine, breast suckling of strangers, etc. The principles is, as long as the hadith explanations are based on the authority of the Quran without deviations then it is acceptable and the ultimate authority is still the Quran.

I don't understand Islam??
Currently there is a growing trend of Quran-only Muslims who rely on the Quran as the only divine authority from Allah.
http://masjidtucson.org/submission/subm ... ssion.html
They have very logical arguments why their Quran-Only view is technically very sound.
Spectrum wrote:If the Quran has loads of evil elements and is worst than the Main Kempf, Why is the Left [Regressive] so sympathetic to Islam?
A good internet rule of them thumb is "Before asking Why, ask If" Thus far you've not actually demonstrated that there exists a Regressive Left, or that they are particularly sympathetic to Islam, rather than just civil liberties in general.
Note,
The regressive left is a term coined by anti-Islamist activist Maajid Nawaz[2] to describe a perceived segment of the left which ignores certain reactionary attitudes in the name of tolerance. Nawaz originally used it to refer to misguided leftist tolerance of conservative and fundamentalist Islam (underbelly and all) in contrast to their progressive stance against the scourge of conservative and fundamentalist Christianity, but the term has since been extended to encompass many (but curiously not all) leftist positions that appear contradictory to progressive values.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Regressive_left

Another useful trick is to reverse the question, and see if it still works. Why are you spending so much time and energy attacking Islam, a religion which doesn't appear to have any elements or features that aren't found in other religions?
I posted a long explanation to Burning Ghost and else why I have a mission to critique Islam and to dig out the proximate causes of Islamic evils. This is based on a Boddhisattva Vow I adopted from Buddhism to reduce sufferings in the World and contribute to World Peace.
I agree all evils and violence must be eliminated or reduced but I don't have the expertise to contribute and deal with ALL all evils and violence. So I contribute to a part of the problem based on what I am able to, i.e. Islamic-based evil and violence.

I have lots of experience living within a Muslim-majority Nation and thus have first hand experience of the evil impulse of Islam [in part] manifesting from the % of evil prone Muslims. Besides the evidence of Islamic based evil and violence is so glaringly evident from what is happening throughout the World at present and historically since Islam emerged 1,400 years ago.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Post Reply